Baby monitors are well-known in the art. Examples of the same can be seen in U.S. Pat. No. 6,091,329: Monitor/Hands Free Intercom; U.S. Pat. No. 6,593,851; U.S. Patent Publication No. US20030122676A1; U.S. Patent Publication No. US20030067391A1: Two-way communication baby monitor with a soothing unit; US Patent Publication No. 20020101350: Method, Apparatus and System for Remote Baby Monitoring With Additional Functions, and World Application No. WO0241489A2: AUTOMATIC MUTE BY BABY MONITOR, all of which are hereby incorporated by reference. Most of these systems work using an RF based transmitter and receiver to allow a more convenient wireless setup. A limitation of these systems is the fact that they are limited in range, cannot be used in some environments where the signal may be blocked, and are susceptible to interference from conventional portable phone signals and similar appliances.
A more recent innovation by Logitech identified as “Mobile Video” allows a camera (which can be a form of baby monitoring device) to transmit monitoring information across a communications channel that can then be seen on a cellular phone. This allows for a greater range of operation. More information on such product can be obtained from the manufacturer of such product, and at their website (Logitech.com)
Another product offering by Cenuco, entitled “Mommytrack” is a baby monitor that allows remote viewing from a PDA device. The MommyTrack “package” includes a mobile device; two home cameras; a wireless base station that connects to a USB port; gateway server access; and special software for both the home PC and the mobile handheld. While the system is relatively sophisticated, it costs thousands of dollars in additional equipment costs. Moreover, a separate subscription is required. More information on such product can be obtained from the manufacturer of such product, and at their website (Cenuco.com).
One limitation of such prior art devices include the fact that a separate dedicated input capture device must be used as part of the transmitting portion of the system. In other words, a specialized sound/video receiver must monitor the area of interest, and then transmit the information to a separate receiver. While the aforementioned Logitech approach solves half the problem (i.e., by allowing a conventional cell phone to pick up the monitored signal) it does not completely eliminate the problem of having to invest in additional hardware for a baby monitoring application.
A recent U.S. Application to Kaplan—2003/0096580—published May 22, 2003 describes using a conventional mobile phone to function as a remote monitoring device. A stimulus (such as video or audio) can trigger a phone call from a monitoring area to a remote user. A sound compare circuit is used to determine that the stimulus is indeed an event that should be reported. The Kaplan reference further comments on the low power, short range limitations of a conventional FM based baby monitor. To address such limitation, Kaplan proposes using a higher powered RF transmitter, such as in a mobile phone. Notably, however, Kaplan does not make mention of routing the stimulus data over anything other than a conventional wireless base station, such as a non-full duplex, or low bandwidth secondary communications channel; nor does he mention allowing the user to journal or calibrate the monitoring link to allow for variations environments, or for the option of transmitting additional information along with the stimulus event.